"Too Much" Lead Time?

[Mike Johnston]

Oh, I agree that in practice the Public Severe Weather Outlooks are not really used by the public; I doubt even a small minority of the public even knows of their existence. I was just responding to the poster that devoted a paragraph that identified a need for a product that already exists. If more awareness of a potential severe weather day is needed, there's already a product on the shelf that's not even being used for the purpose intended. To me, it just highlights that there should be some responsibility on the part of the user - the NWS can't be all things to all people.

 

[Elaine Spencer]

I'm all for having as much lead time as possible. 10 or 15 minutes is plenty if you are going to shelter right where you are and simply have to run to the basement or safe room. But, what if you have to go somewhere else, and take others (esp. children) with you?

I had to do this during the 3/12/06 tornado in SPI. We were living in an apartment building on the UIS campus at the time. The sirens started going off around 8 p.m. and my first instinct was to get into the bathroom (we were on the ground floor, but had no basement). Then the campus police came by at about 8:15 and STRONGLY advised us to haul butt over to the tunnels under the library... "you need to be underground for this one," he said. (After reading through the "now" thread from that night, I can see why!) So we scrambled out to our car, drove a couple of blocks to the nearest parking space, then had to physically run at least another city block to get to the tunnel entrance. The tornado ended up passing a couple miles north of us but it was still a pretty close call.

Then we had to repeat the same process AGAIN at about 2 a.m. when there was another tornado warning... only this time the campus police moved us to another building because they thought they smelled gas in the tunnel! This time I had to get DH and DD out of bed, get them decently dressed, grab blankets and other stuff and we had to run even farther. Whole process took 15-20 minutes at least, and that was rushing around in a state of near panic. If I can get 20-30 minutes warning then at least I can move CALMLY to a place of safety knowing I have some time to collect myself.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

I had to do this during the 3/12/06 tornado in SPI. We were living in an apartment building on the UIS campus at the time.
...deletia...
Whole process took 15-20 minutes at least

Now imagine if you lived in a rural mobile home, about a 15-20 minute drive to the nearest substantial shelter? And imagine that your elderly mother lived with you and required a wheel chair. You're a member of the "general public" like anyone else but your lead time requirements are much greater than average.

 

[Lanny Dean]

Greg *hints* on an interesting possibility (and no offense to Mike) but...is the Private sector trying to capitalize on the timing and or slow reactions of government?
I have read the word stagnant a few times and I for one would have to disagree with this idea, most particulalrly if it is coming from someone in the "private met. sector" as it is. I think it is all too easy to play Monday morning quarterback after the team you just watched on Sunday blew the big game. Sure, we all know that if only you were the coach or quarterback that you would have done things different and ultimately won the game. I wonder if this type of analogy is the reason for this thread?

There will always be differences between the private sector and NOAA/goverment with these types of issues and IMHO we will always have some sort of issue with lead time, feel free to read my original post for reflection. The fact of the matter is that people are going to take cover if they decide to, the job at hand is giving them AS MUCH time as possible to make that choice. I don't know if I really believe in the term "crying wolf"....I am not so sure that it really even exists but being or getting complacent does. Is there a way to help avoid this? I believe there is, and that would be with increased warning information not necessarily timing. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that we do not need to increase lead time, I am just saying that maybe we need to ALSO increase warning information more so than what we have today which in turn would help to increase lead time.

 

[Mike Smith]

Greg *hints* on an interesting possibility (and no offense to Mike) but...is the Private sector trying to capitalize on the timing and or slow reactions of government? I have read the word stagnant a few times and I for one would have to disagree with this idea, most particulalrly if it is coming from someone in the "private met. sector" as it is.

I think it is all too easy to play Monday morning quarterback after the team you just watched on Sunday blew the big game. Sure, we all know that if only you were the coach or quarterback that you would have done things different and ultimately won the game. I wonder if this type of analogy is the reason for this thread?

Lanny,
Please go back and read my post #35. In no way do I suggest or advocate the government be "stagnant" and my record is pretty clear in that regard. Go buy a copy of Warnings and if that doesn't prove it to you, I'll refund your money (surest bet I have ever made). I think the NWS needs keep "lead time" (keeping in mind there is a tradeoff between lead time and accuracy) pretty much where it is and work #1 on the FAR then the, POD because I believe more lives will be saved in that way. I disagree with the current emphasis the NWS seems to be placing on lead time. That is a simple disagreement... nothing more... and there is nothing sinister to read into it.

With regard to Monday morning quarterbacking: The Chiefs' toss back play on 4th and 2 feet in the third quarter is one of the dumbest plays I have ever seen! They never recovered from that debacle. Up until then, they were very much in the game!

Mike

P.S. Lanny: When you are charging people to get them into the immediate vicinity of a storm, aren't you acting as a "private sector" meteorologist?

 

[Adam Lucio]

I don't know if I really believe in the term "crying wolf"....I am not so sure that it really even exists

It could be a local bias but I remember back on 9-27-09 we had a tornado warning over the southern suburbs and there was at least 1 person on my facebook friends list who posted a status that went something like "you cant fool me Alsip tornado sirens, off to starbucks I go"

Around here anyways, the last several tornado warnings went off without major incident and most people do not take them seriously. I definitely believe in the crying wolf theory and still think its more important to improve warning accuracy as opposed to warning lead time. Then again I have never once in my life had to take shelter during a warning so I have no idea what its like or what it entails, and again that could be in part to living where I live.

 

[Lanny Dean]

Lanny,
Please go back and read my post #35. In no way do I suggest or advocate the government be "stagnant" and my record is pretty clear in that regard. Go buy a copy of Warnings and if that doesn't prove it to you, I'll refund your money (surest bet I have ever made). I think the NWS needs keep "lead time" (keeping in mind there is a tradeoff between lead time and accuracy) pretty much where it is and work #1 on the FAR then the, POD because I believe more lives will be saved in that way. I disagree with the current emphasis the NWS seems to be placing on lead time. That is a simple disagreement... nothing more... and there is nothing sinister to read into it.

With regard to Monday morning quarterbacking: The Chiefs' toss back play on 4th and 2 feet in the third quarter is one of the dumbest plays I have ever seen! They never recovered from that debacle. Up until then, they were very much in the game!

Mike...

Mike, please understand that I was not trying to insinuate that it was/is "your comapny VS The government" I was simply throwing out the question, hence using wording such as "possibility" and "I wonder" in my very first sentence. As far as your book, with all due respect, Mike, I have no desire to go out and by your book. If you will recall correctly I questioned your motives regarding the Greensburg section of your book when you first announced it and to be honest I do not feel like supporting the cause....you and I both know why. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. As far as my post, I certainly meant no disrespect, again I was simply throwing out the question and giving my thoughts.

P.S. Lanny: When you are charging people to get them into the immediate vicinity of a storm, aren't you acting as a "private sector" meteorologist?

Where is this coming from? I am not sure how this question even relates to the current issue at hand? While the answer to the question may be yes, the fact of the matter is that I am not the one questioning NOAAs ability to issue warnings in a specific time frame and or length, you are. And unfortunately seeing that you own/run business in the meteorological society private sector this may cause issue such as Gregg outlined in his post. Mike, my post was not a "jab" at you or your company in any way and it is a shame that you took it as such. I feel as though you have asked a very good question with this thread and have received some great feedback, including mine. Please don't take that feedback personal.

That being said, and regarding the Monday morning quarterback comment let me ask you this.....would you have done things differently if you could have been the one to issue said warning (s)??? I think I know your answer already as it is somewhat reflected in your original post.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

...the job at hand is giving them AS MUCH time as possible to make that choice....we need to ALSO increase warning information more so than what we have today which in turn would help to increase lead time.

Lanny, you nailed it. In many of our interactions with users, a very common response we get when asking the questions about improving severe weather outlooks, watches, and warnings is to "provide us with more specificity and information". In other words, how will this hazard affect me, what type and intensity of weather should I expect, when should I expect it (and when will it end), and how confident are you with this information? Providing this kind of detail, especially in a geospatial digital format that exploits today's telecommunication and geolocation technology, is progress.

 

[Mike Smith]

Mike, I have no desire to go out and by your book. If you will recall correctly I questioned your motives regarding the Greensburg section of your book when you first announced it and to be honest I do not feel like supporting the cause....you and I both know why.
...
That being said, and regarding the Monday morning quarterback comment let me ask you this.....would you have done things differently if you could have been the one to issue said warning (s)??? I think I know your answer already as it is somewhat reflected in your original post.

Part I. Lanny, you are upset with a book you haven't read? And, you are upset with the two chapters regarding Greensburg even though the Mayor of Greensburg, Bob Dixon, and Kiowa County Commissioner Gene West have read the book and publicly endorsed it; and invited me to present an overview to the people of Greensburg and more than 150 attended and loved it ("rapt audience", www.hutchnews.com/Greensburg/weatherman ). Mr. West has been kind enough to attend my book signing in Greensburg as well as driving to the west Wichita Borders for that signing.

Let me make a suggestion: Before this goes any farther, go to the local library, check Warnings out, and read it. That way I'm not getting any of your $$ and you can decide whether, after reading the book, there is actually something to be upset about.

Part 2. I likely wouldn't have done ANYTHING differently. In fact, I praised the NWS's performance on both the Don Marsh show on KWMU FM and the John Carney show on KMOX. The audio is still on the respective web sites and you can listen for yourself. I'm just asking the question, after a number of comments pertaining to too much warning, what the other members of StormTrack thought. I've enjoyed reading the comments and have learned from them.

 

[Lanny Dean]

Part I. Lanny, you are upset with a book you haven't read? And, you are upset with the two chapters regarding Greensburg even though the Mayor of Greensburg, Bob Dixon, and Kiowa County Commissioner Gene West have read the book and publicly endorsed it....

First of all, saying that I am "upset" is not a correct statement. I have no real feeling either way except that I don't really care for your book. If I were upset you would certainly know it as everybody would and how do you know I have not read it? Second, I really don't care if President Obama himself endorsed the book. It makes no differnece to me either way. I do not want to derail this thread but I know what happned in Greensburg that night...I was there. I know you were not but yet you and your publicist made it appear that you were. You even implied this when first promoting your book at least until I called you out. But again, I do not want to derail this thread, you and I can discuss this in a PM if you would like?

Part 2. I likely wouldn't have done ANYTHING differently. In fact, I praised the NWS's performance on both the Don Marsh show on KWMU FM and the John Carney show on KMOX. The audio is still on the respective web sites and you can listen for yourself. I'm just asking the question, after a number of comments pertaining to too much warning, what the other members of StormTrack thought. I've enjoyed reading the comments and have learned from them.

As I stated in my first response, I don't think all people will be happy all the time regarding warnings. It's just the nature of the beast. You bring up some valid questions IMO but I just don't think there is a quick fix. Again, the job at hand is to give people as much time as possible to make a choice as to what they need/want to do. I think if we gave them more information as Greg hinted at, it would help. But again, you cannot please everybody, inevitably someone is going to have issue with the warning. Simply put: people will bitch either way but IMO if they have detailed information about the situation then maybe this will help them make an informed decison about what they need to do and hopefully this will curb current issues with the warning process at least a little. *Hopefully*
This has actually brought up some great thoughts and I hope more people will post!

 

[Mike Smith]

Lanny,

At NO TIME have I ever stated or implied that I was in Greensburg that night, your comments not withstanding. We have had this discussion before.

Yes, I was watching the radar in real time that evening and I was in touch with WeatherData's forecasters that evening, but I was not there and I have never stated anything to the contrary.

In fact, if you took the time to read the book you are upset about, you would find that I state I was at KWCH TV in Wichita that evening (p. 259) until about the time the tornado watch was issued (6:10pm). I went home from there and continued to monitor the weather.

Mike

 

[Mike Johnston]

There is not a notion at all of self-aggrandizment in Mike Smith's book. In the section on the Greensburg event, indeed he tells the story of all of the elements and the various people involved in a very effective warning - the NWS forecasters, the media, chasers functioning as spotters, etc. As Mike stated, he wasn't there personally and never claimed to be. But, he was in a pretty good position to be able to write about the event, and did so very successfully, IMO.

In the instant thread, I think a valid point was raised with regard to lead times. Maybe lead times shouldn't be the holy grail of tornado forecasting. With adequate lead times, perhaps emphasis on reducing the FAR comes to the fore. More lead time is great, but accuracy is at least as important.

 

[Alan Black]

Over the weekend, it was very gratifying that Missouri Gov. Nixon attributed the lack of loss of life to the storm warnings for the St. Louis-area storms. http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/01/thank-you-missouri-governor-nixon.html

I was looking at some of the newspaper and radio station news stories that allow comments and there were multiple commenting (paraphrasing) there was too much lead time. One even reported coming out of the basement prematurely.

When I was on Don Marsh's radio show on KWMU (NPR) yesterday morning, Don brought up (again, paraphrasing) sirens going off in too many areas for too long. I explained that I thought the NWS did a very good job and that 30 years ago, there likely would have been no warning and people would have been killed.

That said, this and previous experiences are slowly persuading me that there can be too much warning for a tornado and that number seems to be around 30 to 45 minutes. I don't know what others think but I believe this is a topic that is worthy of more investigation.

I just wanted to share my experience with lead time for this event. I was in western St. Louis County, near Manchester, MO during the event. The sirens were sounded when the warning was initially issued right around 11 am, but after a few minutes the sirens were stopped. This created some confusion for me as I was driving and couldn't easily check radar and the information on commercial radio was not helpful. I estimate it took about 35-40 minutes from the sirens being sounded to the actual arrival of the thunderstorms and I don't think the sirens were sounded again after the initial blast when the warning was issued. I used the sirens as a prompt to gather more information about the situation and hopefully the public did the same, but I can see how someone could have been confused and exited their shelter before the storms even arrived.

 

[Lanny Dean]

There is not a notion at all of self-aggrandizment in Mike Smith's book. In the section on the Greensburg event, indeed he tells the story of all of the elements and the various people involved in a very effective warning - the NWS forecasters, the media, chasers functioning as spotters, etc. As Mike stated, he wasn't there personally and never claimed to be. But, he was in a pretty good position to be able to write about the event, and did so very successfully, IMO.

In the instant thread, I think a valid point was raised with regard to lead times. Maybe lead times shouldn't be the holy grail of tornado forecasting. With adequate lead times, perhaps emphasis on reducing the FAR comes to the fore. More lead time is great, but accuracy is at least as important.

Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather Mike Smith. Greenleaf, $24.95 (312p) ISBN 978-1-60832-034-9

"A well-known meteorologist and founder of WeatherData, Smith takes readers on a fast-paced account of the biggest storms in recent years and how weather forecasting has developed into a true science since the 1950s. Part memoir, part science account, Smith's tale begins in the late 1940s, when weathermen were actually forbidden to broadcast tornado warnings. The U.S. Weather Bureau blocked storm forecasting for fear of getting it wrong, just as today, according to Smith, the FAA has banned weather radios from airport control towers. He delivers a moment-by-moment account of the monster tornado that leveled Greensburg, Kans., in 2007 as well as a damning account of governmental incompetence in the leadup to Hurricane Katrina. But as Smith shows, scientists themselves can be close-minded and prevent their field from progressing: Smith recounts the struggle by Theodore Fujita, creator of the tornado severity scale, to see his findings on microbursts—which have killed hundreds of people in airline crashes—accepted by other scientists. This account of people who do something about the weather should appeal to just about anyone who enjoys talking about it. Photos". (May)

Edit: original thread can be found here: http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/sho...e-Story-of-How-Science-Tamed-the-Weather-quot

Mike Smith, I have requested that we do this via PM, you obviously are not interested. Yes, we have had this discussion already and I did not want to derail this excellent thread which is why I aksed if we could do this via PM, however, the above statement sums up my thought process pretty well. Mike Johnston: I am not sure I understand you statement....lead time has nothing to do with tornado forecasting at all nor is it the "Holy Grail" of such. Lead times issues by local NWSFO are subject to public and private scrutiny, the debate here is not with tornado forecasting, but the scrutinization of warnings and info as it relates to lead times for the public at large.

I just wanted to share my experience with lead time for this event. I was in western St. Louis County, near Manchester, MO during the event. The sirens were sounded when the warning was initially issued right around 11 am, but after a few minutes the sirens were stopped. This created some confusion for me as I was driving and couldn't easily check radar and the information on commercial radio was not helpful. I estimate it took about 35-40 minutes from the sirens being sounded to the actual arrival of the thunderstorms and I don't think the sirens were sounded again after the initial blast when the warning was issued. I used the sirens as a prompt to gather more information about the situation and hopefully the public did the same, but I can see how someone could have been confused and exited their shelter before the storms even arrived.

Alan, thanks for your post...you make a good point with possible confusion with the warning as you were in the actual area. I can't help but think how many others experienced the same issue and is/was another reason for this thread.

 

[Robert Dewey]

He delivers a moment-by-moment account of the monster tornado that leveled Greensburg, Kans., in 2007 as well as a damning account of governmental incompetence in the leadup to Hurricane Katrina.

I think that statement could be taken several ways. I personally took "moment by moment" to be through the eyes of a meteorologist (data interpretation, etc). I haven't read the book and could be wrong... but that's my first interpretation.